Old 2055

[Webbed Feet]

beat me to it....why would an idiot order a 2055 "old" - lenders...always lenders.

The real question is what idiot would use a 2055 "new" when certification number 10 makes it almost impossible to comply with the certification 98% of the time and no EA's can be added?

Webbed.

 

[Chris Colston]

beat me to it....why would an idiot order a 2055 "old" - lenders...always lenders.

Portfolio lenders that don't sell to Fannie or Freddie. Lenders who prefer the use of an EA when needed. Lenders who don't need a cost approach but still want the appraiser to go inside (no need to have any blank sections that way). Lots of reasons for the old 2055, Fannie never should have retired it.


But we are off the topic of the original question.

 

[Lee Lansford]

What's wrong with #8?

Webbed.

WF, the "mutual agreement with the client" part of it; it harkens back to the "limited" appraisal days. An approach that is necessary should not be excluded based strictly upon an agreement between the appraiser and the client.

Lee

 

[Webbed Feet]

Couldn't do it then either!

WF, the "mutual agreement with the client" part of it; it harkens back to the "limited" appraisal days. An approach that is necessary should not be excluded based strictly upon an agreement between the appraiser and the client.

Lee

But Mr. Lee! Even back in the good ol days we could not eliminate a necessary approach. We could only agree to eliminate an applicable approach that was not necessary. This latter was the defining essence between limited appraisals and complete appraisals. Interestingly, very often the more appraisers think something in USPAP changed, the less it really did. Nothing changed! It was only labels that were retired, not the standards that had to be met. If one could not obtain credibility back then without an approach, the approach had to be used. If one cannot obtain credibility today without an approach, the approach must be used.

In theory only today an appraiser is supposed to be responsibile for the development of the SOW determination. In reality, try leaving out a Cost Approach when one is demanded by a wholesale lender for whatever reason they demand it, inappropriate or not. Even to the point copious numbers of appraisers violate USPAP, by supplying an approach they can't do with any credibility at all, just to meet a lender demand. In spite of some of the drafting of USPAP preparing us to be experts, people might actually listen to someday by the year 2030, today we are still like doctors who must provide treatment at the directions of the patient. Even if part of the treatment is nothing more than a placebo and won't do diddley for them.

Nothing has changed.

Webbed.

P.S. Maybe if so many of us weren't a bunch of quacks ..........

 

[JTip]

1/3 of my log was old 2055's. I love doing those.

 

[The Warrior Monk]

The long and short of it is that forms do not dictate the appraisal process.

 

[Lee Lansford]

But Mr. Lee! Even back in the good ol days we could not eliminate a necessary approach. We could only agree to eliminate an applicable approach that was not necessary. This latter was the defining essence between limited appraisals and complete appraisals. Interestingly, very often the more appraisers think something in USPAP changed, the less it really did. Nothing changed! It was only labels that were retired, not the standards that had to be met. If one could not obtain credibility back then without an approach, the approach had to be used. If one cannot obtain credibility today without an approach, the approach must be used.

In theory only today an appraiser is supposed to be responsibile for the development of the SOW determination. In reality, try leaving out a Cost Approach when one is demanded by a wholesale lender for whatever reason they demand it, inappropriate or not. Even to the point copious numbers of appraisers violate USPAP, by supplying an approach they can't do with any credibility at all, just to meet a lender demand. In spite of some of the drafting of USPAP preparing us to be experts, people might actually listen to someday by the year 2030, today we are still like doctors who must provide treatment at the directions of the patient. Even if part of the treatment is nothing more than a placebo and won't do diddley for them.

Nothing has changed.

Webbed.

P.S. Maybe if so many of us weren't a bunch of quacks ..........

I still don't care much for "by agreement with the client" when what is acceptable as to SOW includes "what an appraiser's peers' actions would be in performing the same or a similar assignment."

Further, "appraiser's certification #8", in its entirety:
"I estimated market value of the real property that is the subject of this report based on the sales comparison approach to value. I further certify that I considered the cost and income approaches to value, but, through MUTUAL AGREEMENT with the client, did not develop them, unless I have noted otherwise in this report."

Question: In the above certification, where is the appraiser's consideration as to whether or not the IA or CA approaches were necessary in order to communicate a credible appraisal?

The short answer: There is none.

Now, IF #8 were extended to include comment that "the agreement between the client and appraiser is based upon the rightful conclusion that these approaches are NOT NECESSARY in order to communicate a credible appraisal", #8 would have new meaning. But, #8 does not include these words. Hence, I conclude that it is not appropriate to include #8 among my certifications.

 

[RSW]

I have a request for an old 2055 Exterior Fannie Mae 2055 9/96. My quaestion is this. I need to make a quality of construction adjustment, however there isnt a spot for quality of construction? Per owner and per exterior inspection, the subject has brand new vinyl siding and one of my comparables has older wood siding. I have only done a few of these, but I never had to adjust for quality of construction.

Why would you make a quality adjustment for vinyl vs. frame? I seems that there would be a condition adjustment not a quality adjustment.

 

[Thomas Fiehler]

RSW-I don't think the condition adjustment would be used-more like design/appeal. IMHO

 

[RSW]

RSW-I don't think the condition adjustment would be used-more like design/appeal. IMHO

Where does design and appeal come into play when you are dealing with an older exterior siding to a newer exterior siding. I might see the appeal aspect of it. But, design has nothing to do with the siding in my opinion. Older vs. newer = condition. Now if you were to put brick on the exterior I would say, "Quality and condition."